If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This argument seems to run like this. They hold the imperfect power of discernment except when they don't. Members can discern when they have discernment except when members can't. IOW, their discerning power is limited and imperfect, and imperfect members are left to discern imperfectly when these "special witnesses" are exercising good discernment and to forgive when they are not.

That's not a lot to go on in terms of relying upon anything they are doing.

"Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

I don't want to minimize Denson's claims or what she has gone through, but I'm having a hard time understanding the bolded portion here. Can anyone explain it to me?

I would but for you to understand I’d have to use little words and my post would then be so long that you’d probably just tl;dr it, so I won’t.

"Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

Yes, that's true. They don't, except for areas where they hold keys that I don't hold. That's what it means for them to be Ps, Ss and Rs.

so as to my own sphere of responsibility (me, my family, etc.) They have no more right to inspiration/revelation than I do (and one might even argue less in some respects). That is how I took his comment. If you take it to mean that I can also receive revelation for the church, then I disagree with him. As I have said several times here, the prophets role is to receive guidance for the church and ew sustain him to that office for that purpose, acknowledging that we do not have that role or authority or ability.

this is essentially the same thing I said earlier in the thread - they are the same as you and me, but they are inspired as it pertains to their own callings (just as we are) which are more significant in terms of stewardship than yours or mine - and it is that stewardship which sets them apart.

I was asked to sustain that Hinckley had the ability to receive revelation from God about Bishop, his abilities and deficiencies and past choices. (The prophet/seer part would seem to say he could also have the ability to know what would happen as Nephi was shown the beginning to the end and all detail in between, without that changing anyone’s agency, but I’ll accept your belief that prophesy or acting as a seer requires infallibility of the person sustained to those callings as well as that it would’ve limited Bishop’s agency.)

Does saying that Hinckley could’ve asked the Lord to reveal to him if the grey area of Bishop’s past might disqualify him from service require a belief of infallibility? Do we not believe that the 1P and Q12 have this spiritual gift for items such as callings or only certain callings? What things are they able to see trough the grey on?

Am I allowed to be a TR holder who says that I believe they have this power except for when they don’t? Because, it has always been a yes or no belief question to me in the interview. If we believe they only have it at certain times, are we as members allowed to know what times this power is used and what times it isn’t?

I’m truly happy that you and others don’t find any incongruity in this event. Sadly, I do. Cardiac ealrlier said stop believing in mystical powers, Lebowski and Creek seem to be hedging between don’t believe in mystical powers all the time just sometimes. I love the church, it makes me happy to be a member and attend. Am I asked to sacrifice all I have to God leading all decisions, or a group that is very good people doing their absolute best? Because I’m in, but I’d like to know which one I belong to.

"I think it was King Benjamin who said 'you sorry ass shitbags who have no skills that the market values also have an obligation to have the attitude that if one day you do in fact win the PowerBall Lottery that you will then impart of your substance to those without.'"
- Goatnapper'96

lol stop. I guess what I'm saying is that there are a million intervening, plausible reasons for Bishop not getting snagged before or even after he did his deeds. I think most likely is that free agency vs discernment doesn't always work out to bail out the Church's good name.

I didn't ask that question, I referenced the debate over that question. To me, the two issues are the same. Your wife is basically asking how God could permit Bishop to be MTC President. How can God permit any of the horrible things to happen to his children? If you want God to prevent one bad thing, then you should want God to prevent all of them, and then we are talking about a very different earthly experience and one that I don't think any of us are looking for.

My "normal conversation," I mean one that doesn't include me looking up scholarly theological texts while at work.

See the quoted posted below.

Originally Posted by wuapinmon

[she's] coming less from the worried-about-a-priesthood-leader-accusing/belittling-someone perspective than the self-loathing-based-on-that-comment perspective of someone without a complete understanding of things, or, say, the smarts that most of us have. Or, someone who was told no sex no sex no sex no sex no sex no sex for so long, that even after marriage, it [takes years to change that feeling]. Someone like that, once raped, might believe that they had something to do with it, even if non-consensual, and start loathing themselves.

That's the greater worry for her. Not a scarlet letter that others can see, but the one that only the victim can see, carried due to a comment like that, even if well intended.

Now, regarding a normal conversation.

First, deontological libertarian grossly simplified, means that this life is a test to see if you like evil or good, and like being free to choose or not.

Second, theodicy, is an attempt to understand why God permits evil to exist at all. Mormons call it part of his plan, saying it would be frustrated without it, but that's not an answer, it's a side-stepping of the question, though not quite begging it. Why allow evil to exist? Well, if we have free will, then God must allow it, right? It seems simple to Mormons. But, if we have free will, can God impinge upon that free will without altering it? If he does so, is it still truly free will? Also, if he is omniscient, how can we be free to do anything at all if he ever intervenes in this world through Providence? Also, if Paul has promised us that we will never be tempted beyond our capacity to resist (1 Corinthians 10:13), and if God is omniscient, and God is Provident, then God knows exactly and precisely when we're going to sin, so why then does he ever let us sin, ergo, why is there any evil in this world at all? That's the problem of theodicy, generally.

Third, pantheism. Everything around you is your reality. Everything around you, including you, is governed by laws of nature. Nature (meaning the physical world, not trees and energy bar wrappers) is reality and Nature is law. Nature cannot be escaped. It is always now (in Time). Nature is everywhere and it is also right now. Nature is God. God is Everywhere, He is Universal, Immanent (meaning made of the physical world), and All-Encompassing. So, if evil exists, it too is a manifestation of the all-encompassing immanence of God. Shit Happens? Deus volte!

Or "The history of modern epistemology from Descartes, Hume, and Kant, to Popper and Lorenz, has--it seems to me--made clear that the fact of any reality at all independent of our consciousness can be accepted only as an act of trust."Hans Kung, Eternal Life. ​Doubleday: New York, 1984. (page 227).

Epistemology is the study of what differentiates justified belief from opinion...note that "justified" modifier on belief. I can believe that the bird I saw today on the lawn was a European Starling. I take note of its size, shape, color, plumage, call, bill length, and other field marks. I compare it to field guides with drawings and photographs of other people's observations of the bird recognized as a European Starling. Since European Starlings were released in New York in the 19th Century, they have spread across the entirety of North America, and there are breeding populations in all 49 States on the mainland, and in every county in South Carolina. I have seen European Starlings with other, more experienced birders in the past, who have helped me recognize the bird I saw as a European Starling. I can claim, to have a justified belief that the bird I saw around 9:20AM on the lawn in front of Davidson Hall was a European Starling. I might have an opinion that the other Starlings think he's "cheap," but that cannot be justified.

Now, the Kung quote calls upon the great work done by "modern" philosophers like René Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"), David Hume, Immanuel Kant, etc. to accept anything that we might call 'reality' that is independent of our consciousness, meaning outside of the workings of our brain, only as an act of trust. Meaning, to me at least, and I think to Kung, that our senses perceive things, but we could be fooled, so we have to negotiate some sort of trust with the outside world, in order to function within it, and not go mad wondering--as my students put it sometimes--if The Matrix is a documentary. I put that quote up there drawing a parallel about whether or not we can likewise just negotiate some sort of trust with the existence of God, since there is no proof whatsoever that he exists, just as there isn't really any proof of an external world beyond my perception of it (or if you're a Berkleyian like tooblue seems to be, it's perception of and reaction to me).

And, I never said, as JeffLebowski was offended on your behalf about, that you weren't intelligent. You're falawful. I could never stop loving you.

Last edited by wuapinmon; 04-05-2018 at 03:30 PM.

"Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

Shortly after the death of President Gordon B. Hinckley, the 14 men, Apostles, who had had conferred upon them the keys of the kingdom, gathered together in the upper room of the temple in order to reorganize the First Presidency of the Church. There was no question about what would be done, no hesitancy. We knew that the senior Apostle was the President of the Church. And in that sacred meeting, Thomas Spencer Monson was sustained by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as the President of the Church. He nominated and named his counselors. They likewise were sustained, and they were each ordained and given authority. President Monson was specifically given the authority to exercise all of the priesthood keys of authority. Now, as the scriptures provide, he is the only man on the earth who has the right to exercise all of the keys. But we all hold them as Apostles. There is one man among us called and ordained, and he becomes the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Already he was and had been sustained for years as a prophet, seer, and revelator.

The present Twelve are very ordinary people. They are not, as the original Twelve were not, spectacular individually, but collectively the Twelve are a power.

We come from a variety of occupations. We are scientists, lawyers, teachers.

Elder Nelson was a pioneer heart surgeon. He performed thousands of surgical operations. He told me he gave every heart surgery patient a lifetime guarantee on his work.

Several in this Quorum were military men—a sailor, marines, pilots.

They have held various positions in the Church: home teachers, teachers, missionaries, quorum presidents, bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, and of most importance, husbands and fathers.

They all are students and teachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. What unites us is our love of the Savior and His Father’s children and our witness that He stands at the head of the Church.

Almost to a man, the Twelve come from humble beginnings, as it was when He was here. The living Twelve are welded together in the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ. When the call came, each has put down his nets, so to speak, and followed the Lord.

While the Apostles hold all of the priesthood keys, all leaders and members alike may receive personal revelation. Indeed, they are expected to seek it through prayer and to act on it by faith.

“For through him we … have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”25

First, deontological libertarian grossly simplified, means that this life is a test to see if you like evil or good, and like being free to choose or not.

Second, theodicy, is an attempt to understand why God permits evil to exist at all. Mormons call it part of his plan, saying it would be frustrated without it, but that's not an answer, it's a side-stepping of the question, though not quite begging it. Why allow evil to exist. Well, if we have free will, then God must allow it, right? It seems simple to Mormons. But, if we have free will, can God impinge upon that free will without altering it? If he does so, does is it still truly free will? Also, if he is omniscient, how can we be free to do anything at all if ever intervenes in this world through Providence? Also, if Paul has promised us that we will never be tempted beyond our capacity to resist (1 Corinthians 10:13), and if God is omniscient, and God is Provident, then God knows exactly and precisely when we're going to sin, so why then does ever let us sin, ergo, why is there any evil in this world at all? That's the problem of theodicy, generally.

Third, pantheism. Everything around you is your reality. Everything around you, including you, is governed by laws of nature. Nature (meaning the physical world, not trees and energy bar wrappers) is reality and Nature is law. Nature cannot be escaped. It is always now (in Time). Nature is everywhere and it is also right now. Nature is God. God is Everywhere, He is Universal, Immanent (meaning made of the physical world), and All-Encompassing. So, if evil exists, it too is a manifestation of the all-encompassing immanence of God. Shit Happens? Deus volte!

Or "The history of modern epistemology from Descartes, Hume, and Kant, to Popper and Lorenz, has--it seems to me--made clear that the fact of any reality at all independent of our consciousness can be accepted only as an act of trust."Hans Kung, Eternal Life. ​Doubleday: New York, 1984. (page 227).

Epistemology is the study of what differentiates justified belief from opinion...note that "justified" modifier on belief. I can believe that the bird I saw today on the lawn was a European Starling. I take note of its size, shape, color, plumage, call, bill length, and other field marks. I compare it to field guides with drawings and photographs of other people's observations of the bird recognized as a European Starling. Since European Starlings were released in New York in the 19th Century, they have spread across the entirety of North America, and there are breeding populations in all 49 States on the mainland, and in every county in South Carolina. I have seen European Starlings with other, more experienced birders in the past, who have helped me recognize the bird I saw as a European Starling. I can claim, to have a justified belief that the bird I saw around 9:20AM on the lawn in front of Davidson Hall was a European Starling. I might have an opinion that the other Starlings think he's "cheap," but that cannot be justified.

Now, the Kung quote calls upon the great work done by "modern" philosophers like René Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"), David Hume, Immanuel Kant, etc. to accept anything that we might call 'reality' that is independent of our consciousness, meaning outside of the workings of our brain, only as an act of trust. Meaning, to me at least, and I think to Kung, that our senses perceive things, but we could be fooled, so we have to negotiate some sort of trust with the outside world, in order to function within it, and not go mad wondering--as my students put it sometimes--if The Matrix is a documentary. I put that quote up there drawing a parallel about whether or not we can likewise just negotiate some sort of trust with the existence of God, since there is no proof whatsoever that he exists, just as there isn't really any proof of an external world beyond my perception of it (or if you're a Berkleyian like tooblue seems to be, it's perception of and reaction to me).

And, I never said, as JeffLebowski was offended on your behalf about, that you weren't intelligent. You're falawful. I could never stop loving you.

For a long time, something else puzzled me. Forty-six years ago I was a 37-year-old seminary supervisor. My Church calling was as an assistant teacher in a class in the Lindon Ward.

To my great surprise, I was called to meet with President David O. McKay. He took both of my hands in his and called me to be one of the General Authorities, an Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

....

I did the best I could. I bore my testimony the same as I might have in a fast and testimony meeting in my ward. To my surprise, the Brethren of the Presidency seemed pleased and proceeded to confer the office upon me.

That puzzled me greatly, for I had supposed that someone called to such an office would have an unusual, different, and greatly enlarged testimony and spiritual power.

It puzzled me for a long time until finally I could see that I already had what was required: an abiding testimony in my heart of the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith, that we have a Heavenly Father, and that Jesus Christ is our Redeemer. I may not have known all about it, but I did have a testimony, and I was willing to learn.

As General Authorities of the Church, we are just the same as you are, and you are just the same as we are. You have the same access to the powers of revelation for your families and for your work and for your callings as we do.

It is also true that there is an order to things in the Church. When you are called to an office, you then receive revelation that belongs to that office that would not be given to others.

No member of the Church is esteemed by the Lord as more or less than any other. It just does not work that way! Remember, He is a father—our Father. The Lord is “no respecter of persons.”

We are not worth more to the onrolling of the Lord’s work than were Brother and Sister Toutai Paletu‘a in Nuku‘alofa, Tonga; or Brother and Sister Carlos Cifuentes in Santiago, Chile; or Brother and Sister Peter Dalebout in the Netherlands; or Brother and Sister Tatsui Sato of Japan; or hundreds of others I have met while traveling about the world. It just does not work that way.

Last edited by Jeff Lebowski; 04-05-2018 at 03:24 PM.

"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

First, deontological libertarian grossly simplified, means that this life is a test to see if you like evil or good, and like being free to choose or not.

Second, theodicy, is an attempt to understand why God permits evil to exist at all. Mormons call it part of his plan, saying it would be frustrated without it, but that's not an answer, it's a side-stepping of the question, though not quite begging it. Why allow evil to exist? Well, if we have free will, then God must allow it, right? It seems simple to Mormons. But, if we have free will, can God impinge upon that free will without altering it? If he does so, is it still truly free will? Also, if he is omniscient, how can we be free to do anything at all if he ever intervenes in this world through Providence? Also, if Paul has promised us that we will never be tempted beyond our capacity to resist (1 Corinthians 10:13), and if God is omniscient, and God is Provident, then God knows exactly and precisely when we're going to sin, so why then does he ever let us sin, ergo, why is there any evil in this world at all? That's the problem of theodicy, generally.

Third, pantheism. Everything around you is your reality. Everything around you, including you, is governed by laws of nature. Nature (meaning the physical world, not trees and energy bar wrappers) is reality and Nature is law. Nature cannot be escaped. It is always now (in Time). Nature is everywhere and it is also right now. Nature is God. God is Everywhere, He is Universal, Immanent (meaning made of the physical world), and All-Encompassing. So, if evil exists, it too is a manifestation of the all-encompassing immanence of God. Shit Happens? Deus volte!

Or "The history of modern epistemology from Descartes, Hume, and Kant, to Popper and Lorenz, has--it seems to me--made clear that the fact of any reality at all independent of our consciousness can be accepted only as an act of trust."Hans Kung, Eternal Life. ​Doubleday: New York, 1984. (page 227).

Epistemology is the study of what differentiates justified belief from opinion...note that "justified" modifier on belief. I can believe that the bird I saw today on the lawn was a European Starling. I take note of its size, shape, color, plumage, call, bill length, and other field marks. I compare it to field guides with drawings and photographs of other people's observations of the bird recognized as a European Starling. Since European Starlings were released in New York in the 19th Century, they have spread across the entirety of North America, and there are breeding populations in all 49 States on the mainland, and in every county in South Carolina. I have seen European Starlings with other, more experienced birders in the past, who have helped me recognize the bird I saw as a European Starling. I can claim, to have a justified belief that the bird I saw around 9:20AM on the lawn in front of Davidson Hall was a European Starling. I might have an opinion that the other Starlings think he's "cheap," but that cannot be justified.

Now, the Kung quote calls upon the great work done by "modern" philosophers like René Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"), David Hume, Immanuel Kant, etc. to accept anything that we might call 'reality' that is independent of our consciousness, meaning outside of the workings of our brain, only as an act of trust. Meaning, to me at least, and I think to Kung, that our senses perceive things, but we could be fooled, so we have to negotiate some sort of trust with the outside world, in order to function within it, and not go mad wondering--as my students put it sometimes--if The Matrix is a documentary. I put that quote up there drawing a parallel about whether or not we can likewise just negotiate some sort of trust with the existence of God, since there is no proof whatsoever that he exists, just as there isn't really any proof of an external world beyond my perception of it (or if you're a Berkleyian like tooblue seems to be, it's perception of and reaction to me).

And, I never said, as JeffLebowski was offended on your behalf about, that you weren't intelligent. You're falawful. I could never stop loving you.

tl;dr.

Just kidding. Thanks for the long-ass response filled with smaller words I can understand. I'll try to write a thoughtful response in return, but can't get to it right yet.

Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

Some more thoughts and musings on this after reading more contributions, not really meant to convince. I understand the plight of the doubter, (including myself). At some point, we are all exposed to the "just follow the brethren" doctrine. In primary for sure, "Follow the Prophet--don't go astray; he knows the way". You've got talks like this one.

Now, how did we know? Because we knew, both of us—together, at once, without any doubt. In reality our assignment was not to choose a stake president, but rather to find the man that the Lord had chosen. The Lord speaks in an unmistakable way. Men are called by prophecy.

It's not hard to find multitudes of talks along the same lines.

The inference is that no significant calling would be made without the Lord having revealed to his servants that an individual has been chosen by the Lord. And that it's not done by a single person, but that a consensus among at least two brethren is the usual practice, all witnessing to the revelation. It is likely that an MTC president calling would not be made by any single individual, but done at least as part of a First Presidency consensus, if not the full 15 apostles. It's not just pick the best one, but continue to interview until the Lord reveals His choice.

Why then does Lord call men that are flawed and have the potential, and maybe are even likely, to commit grievous sin? Agency has to matter somehow. The rejection of predestination has to matter. The difference between being called and being chosen definitely matters.

I haven't made any sense of this in any concrete fashion. I have a lot less grievous experiences with similar level authority figures. Especially related to mission experiences, both my 2nd mission president and the area authority over missionary work were in constant violation of D&C 121. I've spent a long time trying to figure out why God calls pricks as authorities. I've only ever come up with the eternal perspective solution as viable, but I hate that one and I tend to not want to worship a God who would impose it. Not a big fan of the "my ways are not your ways" scripture.

The Bishop situation has only got 2 real options. One, this is an example of the fallibility of the brethren. They thought they had received inspiration that God did not send. Or two, God called him, but he fell from grace.

The first option is hard to reconcile against the BKP quote (and the rest of the talk) above, but still possible. I've sometimes come to the conclusion (from which I occasionally retreat) that the whole "receive inspiration for everything" is simply the inculturation of a false doctrine. It's a doctrine that has a relatively easy path from false teaching to accepted doctrine. If indeed God has laid the responsibility of bringing about the the restoration of the kingdom of God on earth at the feet of the brethren, that's an enormous weight. The pressure is likely to cause some to break and violate section 121. How do you get people to do the right thing? One way is to appeal to authority, "because God said so". That's a lot easier than other more difficult paths that are required by section 121. Why explain a very nuanced view or understanding of say, modesty, when I can just call it God's law or standard?

It's easier for the followers also. I absolutely abhor the teaching that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith is a prophet, and therefore everything that comes after must also be true. It's presented as if that's a logical argument, and people just accept that it is. Even though it's an open acknowledgement that Catholicism is the true way. It's an easy path, I don't have to think for myself, I've got a prophet for that. It allows the construction of order out the natural chaos of moral possibilities. In the software of our brain, it's a "set and forget" belief, allowing one to use conscious brain function elsewhere. It has great appeal. Until someone or something pulls the rug out and it crashes to the floor.

I believe most of us don't really buy into the full time infallibility of leaders. At least not at some level. That would alleviate us from the burden of moral responsibility and accountability which cannot be a true path to becoming divine. If we truly believed that--we would act it out, which we don't. Article of Faith 2 applies.

The second option is harder to unpack, and I've been trying to do so for the past 30 years at least. I'm not sure I've really gotten anywhere. It requires me understanding if God can and also chooses to see the future, and maybe even how that future is unfolded to him and if is it changeable. Does God have limitations, even if they are self-imposed? Can He see future choices but has to act as if he can't or else He denies the agency of man? Can He only hold man accountable after the act has been done even if He foresaw it? Yet He is a God of prophecy and revelation. It still seems to always come back to "...that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good." The Eternal perspective.

This verse is still one that I have difficulty accepting:

But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

I haven't made any sense of this in any concrete fashion. I have a lot less grievous experiences with similar level authority figures. Especially related to mission experiences, both my 2nd mission president and the area authority over missionary work were in constant violation of D&C 121. I've spent a long time trying to figure out why God calls pricks as authorities. I've only ever come up with the eternal perspective solution as viable, but I hate that one and I tend to not want to worship a God who would impose it. Not a big fan of the "my ways are not your ways" scripture.

From D&C 121:

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

We are all jerks to some degree. I bet even PAC has his moments. (DON'T @ ME!)

"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

The second option is harder to unpack, and I've been trying to do so for the past 30 years at least. I'm not sure I've really gotten anywhere. It requires me understanding if God can and also chooses to see the future, and maybe even how that future is unfolded to him and if is it changeable. Does God have limitations, even if they are self-imposed? Can He see future choices but has to act as if he can't or else He denies the agency of man? Can He only hold man accountable after the act has been done even if He foresaw it? Yet He is a God of prophecy and revelation. It still seems to always come back to "...that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good." The Eternal perspective.

Late afternoon ramblings with no conclusion unfortunately.

Man, if you ever come to a conclusion, please, share it, you'll have solved something that no one ever has. I spent five years chasing it only to find at the end that I had learned that I had only glimpsed a drop in the bucket of what had been written on it---IN ENGLISH!

"Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

Some more thoughts and musings on this after reading more contributions, not really meant to convince. I understand the plight of the doubter, (including myself). At some point, we are all exposed to the "just follow the brethren" doctrine at some point. In primary for sure, "Follow the Prophet--don't go astray; he knows the way". You've got talks like this one.

It's not hard to find multitudes of talks along the same lines.

The inference is that no significant calling would be made without the Lord having revealed to his servants that an individual has been chosen by the Lord. And that it's not done by a single person, but that a consensus among at least two brethren is the usual practice, all witnessing to the revelation. It is likely that an MTC president calling would not be made by any single individual, but done at least as part of a First Presidency consensus, if not the full 15 apostles. It's not just pick the best one, but continue to interview until the Lord reveals His choice.

Why then does Lord call men that are flawed and have the potential, and maybe are even likely, to commit grievous sin? Agency has to matter somehow. The rejection of predestination has to matter. The difference between being called and being chosen definitely matters.

I haven't made any sense of this in any concrete fashion. I have a lot less grievous experiences with similar level authority figures. Especially related to mission experiences, both my 2nd mission president and the area authority over missionary work were in constant violation of D&C 121. I've spent a long time trying to figure out why God calls pricks as authorities. I've only ever come up with the eternal perspective solution as viable, but I hate that one and I tend to not want to worship a God who would impose it. Not a big fan of the "my ways are not your ways" scripture.

The Bishop situation has only got 2 real options. One, this is an example of the fallibility of the brethren. They thought they had received inspiration that God did not send. Or two, God called him, but he fell from grace.

The first option is hard to reconcile against the BKP quote (and the rest of the talk) above, but still possible. I've sometimes come to the conclusion (from which I occasionally retreat) that the whole "receive inspiration for everything" is simply the inculturation of a false doctrine. It's a doctrine that has a relatively easy path from false teaching to accepted doctrine. If indeed God has laid the responsibility of bringing about the the restoration of the kingdom of God on earth at the feet of the brethren, that's an enormous weight. The pressure is likely to cause some to break and violate section 121. How do you get people to do the right thing? One way is to appeal to authority, "because God said so". That's a lot easier than other more difficult paths that are required by section 121. Why explain a very nuanced view or understanding of say, modesty, when I can just call it God's law or standard?

It's easier for the followers also. I absolutely abhor the teaching that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith is a prophet, and therefore everything that comes after must also be true. It's presented as if that's a logical argument, and people just accept that it is. Even though it's an open acknowledgement that Catholicism is the true way. It's an easy path, I don't have to think for myself, I've got a prophet for that. It allows the construction of order out the natural chaos of moral possibilities. In the software of our brain, it's a "set and forget" belief, allowing one to use conscious brain function elsewhere. It has great appeal. Until someone or something pulls the rug out and it crashes to the floor.

I believe most of us don't really buy into the full time infallibility of leaders. At least not at some level. That would alleviate us from the burden of moral responsibility and accountability which cannot be a true path to becoming divine. If we truly believed that--we would act it out, which we don't. Article of Faith 2 applies.

The second option is harder to unpack, and I've been trying to do so for the past 30 years at least. I'm not sure I've really gotten anywhere. It requires me understanding if God can and also chooses to see the future, and maybe even how that future is unfolded to him and if is it changeable. Does God have limitations, even if they are self-imposed? Can He see future choices but has to act as if he can't or else He denies the agency of man? Can He only hold man accountable after the act has been done even if He foresaw it? Yet He is a God of prophecy and revelation. It still seems to always come back to "...that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good." The Eternal perspective.

This verse is still one that I have difficulty accepting:

Late afternoon ramblings with no conclusion unfortunately.

Or Occam's Razor, he doesn't intervene or he doesn't exist.

"Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

Some more thoughts and musings on this after reading more contributions, not really meant to convince. I understand the plight of the doubter, (including myself). At some point, we are all exposed to the "just follow the brethren" doctrine at some point. In primary for sure, "Follow the Prophet--don't go astray; he knows the way". You've got talks like this one.

It's not hard to find multitudes of talks along the same lines.

The inference is that no significant calling would be made without the Lord having revealed to his servants that an individual has been chosen by the Lord. And that it's not done by a single person, but that a consensus among at least two brethren is the usual practice, all witnessing to the revelation. It is likely that an MTC president calling would not be made by any single individual, but done at least as part of a First Presidency consensus, if not the full 15 apostles. It's not just pick the best one, but continue to interview until the Lord reveals His choice.

Why then does Lord call men that are flawed and have the potential, and maybe are even likely, to commit grievous sin? Agency has to matter somehow. The rejection of predestination has to matter. The difference between being called and being chosen definitely matters.

I haven't made any sense of this in any concrete fashion. I have a lot less grievous experiences with similar level authority figures. Especially related to mission experiences, both my 2nd mission president and the area authority over missionary work were in constant violation of D&C 121. I've spent a long time trying to figure out why God calls pricks as authorities. I've only ever come up with the eternal perspective solution as viable, but I hate that one and I tend to not want to worship a God who would impose it. Not a big fan of the "my ways are not your ways" scripture.

The Bishop situation has only got 2 real options. One, this is an example of the fallibility of the brethren. They thought they had received inspiration that God did not send. Or two, God called him, but he fell from grace.

The first option is hard to reconcile against the BKP quote (and the rest of the talk) above, but still possible. I've sometimes come to the conclusion (from which I occasionally retreat) that the whole "receive inspiration for everything" is simply the inculturation of a false doctrine. It's a doctrine that has a relatively easy path from false teaching to accepted doctrine. If indeed God has laid the responsibility of bringing about the the restoration of the kingdom of God on earth at the feet of the brethren, that's an enormous weight. The pressure is likely to cause some to break and violate section 121. How do you get people to do the right thing? One way is to appeal to authority, "because God said so". That's a lot easier than other more difficult paths that are required by section 121. Why explain a very nuanced view or understanding of say, modesty, when I can just call it God's law or standard?

It's easier for the followers also. I absolutely abhor the teaching that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith is a prophet, and therefore everything that comes after must also be true. It's presented as if that's a logical argument, and people just accept that it is. Even though it's an open acknowledgement that Catholicism is the true way. It's an easy path, I don't have to think for myself, I've got a prophet for that. It allows the construction of order out the natural chaos of moral possibilities. In the software of our brain, it's a "set and forget" belief, allowing one to use conscious brain function elsewhere. It has great appeal. Until someone or something pulls the rug out and it crashes to the floor.

I believe most of us don't really buy into the full time infallibility of leaders. At least not at some level. That would alleviate us from the burden of moral responsibility and accountability which cannot be a true path to becoming divine. If we truly believed that--we would act it out, which we don't. Article of Faith 2 applies.

The second option is harder to unpack, and I've been trying to do so for the past 30 years at least. I'm not sure I've really gotten anywhere. It requires me understanding if God can and also chooses to see the future, and maybe even how that future is unfolded to him and if is it changeable. Does God have limitations, even if they are self-imposed? Can He see future choices but has to act as if he can't or else He denies the agency of man? Can He only hold man accountable after the act has been done even if He foresaw it? Yet He is a God of prophecy and revelation. It still seems to always come back to "...that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good." The Eternal perspective.

This verse is still one that I have difficulty accepting:

Late afternoon ramblings with no conclusion unfortunately.

Keep rambling. I am enjoying your thoughts in this thread.

One of the grandest benefits of the enlightenment was the realization that our moral sense must be based on the welfare of living individuals, not on their immortal souls. Honest and passionate folks can strongly disagree regarding spiritual matters, so it's imperative that we not allow such considerations to infringe on the real happiness of real people.

Woot

I believe religion has much inherent good and has born many good fruits.
SU

I believe that we all act under revelation, and I do not believe the leadership has more advanced insight or revelation than you or me. And they are as fallible as all of us as well.

I was solidly in the exceptional men/commune with God/when they speak the world should listen category. I did not see them as infallible, but I revered them and took them very seriously. I saw a clear difference between my inspiration/communion with God and theirs. And looking back at my experience with inspiration, it is a sad indictment of either me or the church leadership, or both.

I always struggled with inspiration. Always. I never got to the point where I could point to an impression and say, yep, that was God telling me what to do. And I tried to work on it. I want to emphasize that I wasn't the type of person looking for inspiration in all aspects of my life. I'm talking about the big guns; the truthfulness of the BOM, who to marry, what to do in life, etc. I really tried to keep wearying God to a minimum. And I never got a clear impression when I asked about the BOM, and never got a yea or nay on my wife. The career thing I was OK with, because the struggle I had choosing a profession helped me realize what I loved. But it kind of stuck in my craw that my mind was pretty blank when I asked for inspiration on eternal matters. I didn't dwell on the absence of inspiration about those things, and in the end I grew into a testimony of the BOM and a love for my best friend. But still, I was endowed priesthood holder RM. I could never tell the difference between inspiration and random good thoughts. I never ended a prayer in tears, solemnly mentioning that God wanted a specific brother to be the YM president, as I witnessed my Bishop do. The counselors I chose were people I was naturally drawn to. I took the absence of an answer as God's OK. The plans I implemented in my presidency were good ideas my friend had in his quorum, not my inspiration.

Maybe that's how it works, from us simpletons all the way to the prophet. Maybe it's a continual struggle to go through life, always learning to tune into the spirit. Maybe it's always a tossup between good ideas and inspiration. And when a GA arrives at his calling he is right more often than not, but still struggling as I did, taking the absence of a clear answer as a tentative OK. I do think that if the gospel is the one true divine plan for the whole of humanity, that this tenuous view of inspiration is at odds with the level of devotion it requires us to have. But I still could have accepted this downgraded view of inspiration, had I not had the expectation of something clearly different for most of my formative years. I was never officially presented with this option. And even though it's an appeal to orthomo fallacy, I doubt it's a widely shared view in the church today.